Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
about
The utility of medico-legal databases for public health research: a systematic review of peer-reviewed publications using the National Coronial Information SystemA guide to performing a peer review of randomised controlled trialsThe Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective EnterpriseImpact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysisRewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication.Complex systems approach to scientific publication and peer-review system: development of an agent-based model calibrated with empirical journal dataBecoming a peer reviewer: engaging in sharing and gaining knowledge.The most important tasks for peer reviewers evaluating a randomized controlled trial are not congruent with the tasks most often requested by journal editors.How to review a surgical paper: a guide for junior referees.A tool to make reporting checklists work.If At First You Don't Succeed: The Fate of Manuscripts Rejected by Academic Emergency Medicine.Evidence appraisal: a scoping review, conceptual framework, and research agenda.Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications.A protocol of a cross-sectional study evaluating an online tool for early career peer reviewers assessing reports of randomised controlled trialsHow does one become a family physician?Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication.Comment devient-on médecin de famille?How to review a paper for Heart.Rewarding reviewers, tracking our authors and selective electronic publication.Researchers' time should be protected as much as possible - commentary on: Toroser D, Carlson J, Robinson M, et al. Factors impacting time to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opinion 2016: published online 31 DImproving the peer review skills of young rheumatologists and researchers in rheumatology: the EMEUNET Peer Review Mentoring Program.Reviewing the review: a qualitative assessment of the peer review process in surgical journals.Author-suggested reviewers: gender differences and influences on the peer review process at an ecology journal
P2860
Q24288869-4D1474B2-E40D-46F3-9BCB-A0F63B112AC8Q26777625-E4E92EA7-62CB-4960-9CD9-BA8CD0936BEBQ27886969-CC80F874-1A87-4927-893F-D6292D773F01Q30249679-F5F43FFA-4891-4F88-A229-EFF3C5815E5EQ30487757-57A6A3CD-1D88-4896-804D-EBD6DFABF28BQ31043561-0F060C77-DC3D-462C-88FF-5817A4B9D908Q35513740-EE114B48-20CE-4DC8-B3D4-3670E20C7F27Q35682383-AD5A9BAE-2216-4BFE-930B-94EF009E9897Q35923295-DEAE3752-24E7-482A-BA9A-815B08F082E1Q36100214-2BB21F09-4F90-46EF-9E9F-E0F8EA10346DQ38590980-FFE882B8-CB56-4FE2-9D57-A3140C9F80E3Q38765450-E3C8D327-0F5F-4B01-B394-069E12B88104Q38982634-7E8537C5-F1B7-471D-A605-4C15D83760FEQ39026700-3104525B-A8D3-42E2-AB6D-E82E78B7FD29Q39098841-182F353E-7CD1-43C2-A278-F60627328C26Q42376867-0BE81BB5-10DB-437A-AACB-FA66D7D75BB9Q42590613-628104F5-766B-427D-A392-BD2FF8A67708Q42698230-093104BC-43B4-43A3-8EA7-F64ED9EDB019Q46750840-D7AD862D-EC2E-40A9-9522-BA05DEE3054EQ48245980-147B39F5-5357-47D5-8DA2-DE7D581E8B79Q48562774-5E69AD3D-3A4E-46F6-AEF9-E9819841988BQ50853145-30514AEE-3566-4865-A42F-26151C2776FCQ52659242-EDE32D59-739C-4B20-B890-4914125C43DDQ55354441-27E3812A-E787-4096-AB1B-8537050E3999Q58042235-892F1CC0-2384-44E6-A4BC-16AADB15068B
P2860
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
description
2014 nî lūn-bûn
@nan
2014 թուականին հրատարակուած գիտական յօդուած
@hyw
2014 թվականին հրատարակված գիտական հոդված
@hy
2014年の論文
@ja
2014年論文
@yue
2014年論文
@zh-hant
2014年論文
@zh-hk
2014年論文
@zh-mo
2014年論文
@zh-tw
2014年论文
@wuu
name
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@ast
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en-gb
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@nl
type
label
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@ast
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en-gb
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@nl
prefLabel
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@ast
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en-gb
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@nl
P2860
P3181
P1433
P1476
Peer review for biomedical publications: we can improve the system
@en
P2093
Ernest E Moore
Philip F Stahel
P2860
P2888
P3181
P356
10.1186/S12916-014-0179-1
P407
P577
2014-01-01T00:00:00Z
P5875
P6179
1026743228